'Evidence-based' marketing at the ROH - that would explain a lot!

[bridiem]

I received the ROH magazine mailing today with a letter from Sacha Glasgow-Smith (Interim Head of Friends and Fundraising Campaigns). So I have replied to her letter by email, commenting on the Arts Professional interview.

 

[Mary]

Thanks Geoff.

The sanity and common sense of the comments on the article really shines out in comparison to the absurd marketing-speak, and gives me some hope.

 

 

[Riva]

I emailed the friends team earlier this week to passionately express my disappointment in the comments made by Lucy Sinclair. I received a response within 24 hours but it was almost entirely identical to the message that Timmie posted, and the comment made by ROH ok the original webpage. I feel for the friends team who will be the ones on the receiving end of members’ concerns, but all the same a ‘copy and paste’ email is unlikely to warrant a sense of loyalty. 

[Geoff]

19 minutes ago, Riva said:

I emailed the friends team earlier this week to passionately express my disappointment in the comments made by Lucy Sinclair. I received a response within 24 hours but it was almost entirely identical to the message that Timmie posted, and the comment made by ROH ok the original webpage.

 

We won't get any different (let alone more thoughtful) replies until the bosses start taking this seriously. But the more of us who write in or post on the ROH website the more likely the ROH will realise they need to address this properly. 

[Melody]

This is what happens when they listen to high-price consultants - things become more expensive and less accessible.

 

I assume the ROH doesn't want to replace its current crop of loyal customers with a parade of newcomers who only attend once; if they've got any sense (which at this point I'm wondering about), they'll want the new patrons to become repeat customers in the future. At which point apparently they'll insult those repeat customers in another quest to find more newcomers, probably on the recommendation of another high-price consultant. This whole thing seems to not be at all well thought out, and I'm wondering how much they paid the consultants to come up with this pig's breakfast of a solution.

 

Maybe for the really popular shows that sell out early on a regular basis, they could have more performances. It's a bit strange sometimes to see the cast lists for a popular classic and find that half the principals only have a couple of performances, especially if management is grumbling about too many people buying tickets. I'm not sure where they're getting the idea that young people have all this spare money these days - I thought older people were supposed to be better off and therefore a more attractive demographic.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Melody

[Bluebird]

2 minutes ago, Melody said:

This is what happens when they listen to high-price consultants - things become more expensive and less accessible.

 

According to the ROH website, Lucy Sinclair isn't a consultant, she's a member of staff. She's their "Director of Audiences and Media"

http://www.roh.org.uk/about/royal-opera-house/whos-who

 

[Melody]

I was meaning this Baker Richards company, who were engaging in that spectacular corporate-speak gobbledygook about "data-led evidence based approach" and whatnot. When you have to resort to that sort of jargon, it usually means there's more style than substance going on. 

 

I mean, earnest bloviating about reducing the frequency of attendance??? Going to the ballet isn't the same as unnecessary repeat visits to the doctor.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Melody

[Fonty]

4 minutes ago, Melody said:

I mean, earnest bloviating about reducing the frequency of attendance??? Going to the ballet isn't the same as unnecessary repeat visits to the doctor.

 

I had to look up "bloviating", as it was not a word I have come across before!  Although I have experienced its meaning in many a meeting in the past.....

[Timmie]

I did reply with some further comments to the email from ROH and received a response which included: "As you’ve suggested, this is all being discussed currently and your feedback is very useful." which makes me feel a little better. .

[Lizbie1]

I wonder how much this strategy has been influenced by Arts Council targets to do with age, background and new audiences? If the ROH has hit on increased prices as a way to achieve this, I think we can file it under "law of unintended consequences."

 

Maybe it's worth letting ACE know about this as well (not that I'm a fan of theirs).

[Jan McNulty]

6 hours ago, Melody said:

It's a bit strange sometimes to see the cast lists for a popular classic and find that half the principals only have a couple of performances, especially if management is grumbling about too many people buying tickets. I'm not sure where they're getting the idea that young people have all this spare money these days - I thought older people were supposed to be better off and therefore a more attractive demographic.

 

Melody - you have hit the nail on the head!  A friend of mine attended a pre-performance talk by another Arts Organisation some years ago and she told me they said they valued their older members because youngsters didn't have the money, then many of them marry and have children and can finally indulge in their love of the Arts in their middle years and beyond.

 

How true this is!  Today's 20yos will be the 40yos in 20 years and will presumably start taking over the audience!

 

 

[JohnS]

9 hours ago, bridiem said:

I received the ROH magazine mailing today with a letter from Sacha Glasgow-Smith (Interim Head of Friends and Fundraising Campaigns). So I have replied to her letter by email, commenting on the Arts Professional interview.

 

 

Thank you bridiem and others who have written to the ROH.  On a similar note, having gone on about how good the ROH's 'News' website is and how it seems Facebook and Twitter are the ROH's preferred forms of communication, should we post our thoughts on Open Up and performances etc on News as much as possible?  If the website gets more comments than Twitter, might that help ensure the continuance of the website's News - use it or lose it?

[Mary]

I had another look round ROH this evening- couldn't see in the Linbury this time because they were 'having a Board meeting'. I wondered if there was any discussion of this issue going on..and for  a brief moment contemplated bursting in to make a spirited and dramatic protest on behalf of Ballet forum but reason prevailed....perhaps just as well....

[bridiem]

I received a reply from Sacha Glasgow-Smith, along the same lines as previous reports. I have asked her to clarify how what she says tallies with what Lucy Sinclair said.

 

[Margaret]

I too have had a reply to my email about the Lucy Sinclair issue, along the same lines as others.  I also queried the pricing of some of the ballets, particularly about the change in prices for matinees (which are now the same as evening performances).   The example I gave was the increase from £59 for the front row of the amphi for Nutcracker  to £85 for R & J.  Even if you compare evening prices, there is still an increase of approx 14% .     I hope this might make the ROH think and change, but I doubt it.  

[Blossom]

56 minutes ago, Margaret said:

   The example I gave was the increase from £59 for the front row of the amphi for Nutcracker  to £85 for R & J.  Even if you compare evening prices, there is still an increase of approx 14% .     I hope this might make the ROH think and change, but I doubt it.  

 

You will actually find it is more than a 14% increase- you should be calculating the increase of £26 over the original price so 44%. 

[JohnS]

31 minutes ago, Blossom said:

 

You will actually find it is more than a 14% increase- you should be calculating the increase of £26 over the original price so 44%. 

 

I think Margaret was comparing Romeo & Juliet prices with Nutcracker evening prices (£74) rather than the Matinee prices.

[penelopesimpson]

 

So, let me get this right.  ROH want to bring in a new audience, specifically younger and more ethnically diverse.

But the venue is playing at capacity most nights so what to do?  Answer, apparently, is to get the core audience who buy multiple tickets, often for one production, not to visit as frequently.  To persuade them, they will be hit in the pocket.

In the meantime, the hordes of ethnically diverse youth who will have ventured into ROH to buy an extremely expensive coffee/log on to Wifi/have a meeting/use the loos, will then hoover up the tickets that have become too expensive for the old lags.

You reckon?

Apart from the dubious morality of penalising loyal customers, the commercial argument makes no sense.  The funding bodies who contribute to ROH are continually exhorting them to make tickets available at lower prices – so as to encourage younger, less affluent visitors.  Will the Box Office have to have one price for newcomers and a different, higher one for frequent flyers?  All this flies in the face of marketing wisdom which rewards repeat purchase.

Then, of course, you’ve got the knock-on effect on the commercial activities at ROH.  Who is to eat in the three restaurants and drink in the bars – all of which have recently increased their capacity?  From my experience, it isn’t going to be the new youthful audience who will use other establishments in Covent Garden.  The catering outlets contribute a great deal to ROH and if they see their revenue falling, whether it be by volume or spend, they will not be as keen to compete for the franchise and will exact improved terms.  I know for a fact that the current caterers were not happy having to put the price of champagne up to an all-time high of £15 per glass.

I get the impression that the Head of Marketing is falling over herself to be seen as innovative and pushing the envelope and all the other clichés that constitute marketing speak, without tempering the whole thing with a healthy dose of common sense.  Above all, does this person really understand that we are talking about the Arts, not a can of beans?

Have I got this right?

[bridiem]

I received a further reply from the ROH: 'Please be assured that we have no intention of deliberately reducing the number of Friends attending performances at the ROH. The piece in Arts Professional describes more generally the ROH’s intention to broaden its audience in the long-term, and we deeply apologise if the wrong impression was given to Friends about our pricing policy.' i.e. once more (presumably deliberately) refuting an allegation that was NOT made and not addressing the issue that WAS raised.

 

I have replied to point out that I did not say that they wish to reduce the number of Friends attending but that they wish to raise prices to reduce frequency of attendance, with the direct quote again from Lucy Sinclair.

[Fonty]

58 minutes ago, penelopesimpson said:

 

 I know for a fact that the current caterers were not happy having to put the price of champagne up to an all-time high of £15 per glass.

 

 

Why did they do it, then?  Who forced them to do it? 

[penelopesimpson]

9 minutes ago, Fonty said:

 

Why did they do it, then?  Who forced them to do it? 

The percentage to ROH

[bridiem]

The ROH has replied again: 'Once again we are very sorry the wrong impression was given. As we’ve subsequently said, we didn’t mean that we want our Friends to come less often.' Strange, since that's exactly what they said... But I suspect that's as far as I can get for now. (Though I did reply saying that I hoped the ROH would issue a public statement withdrawing the policy, to avoid any further confusion.)

Edited October 12, 2018 by bridiem

[penelopesimpson]

I am waiting to visit tomorrow evening and will then write to them.  I particularly want to see if the public areas are manageable/enjoyable now that ROH is a free picnic area to which you bring your own bottle.  Lovely.

[alison]

4 hours ago, bridiem said:

'Please be assured that we have no intention of deliberately reducing the number of Friends attending performances at the ROH.

 

But should it happen ... accidentally ... then what?  They'll be fine with it?  

[capybara]

This has all been seriously mishandled and it's the last thing that they should have lobbed into the equation just as the 'new' house opened. Talk about scoring an 'own goal' !!!!

[Sim]

16 hours ago, bridiem said:

The ROH has replied again: 'Once again we are very sorry the wrong impression was given. As we’ve subsequently said, we didn’t mean that we want our Friends to come less often.' Strange, since that's exactly what they said... But I suspect that's as far as I can get for now. (Though I did reply saying that I hoped the ROH would issue a public statement withdrawing the policy, to avoid any further confusion.)

So how about frequent attendees who are not Friends?   Maybe we are the targets!!

[bridiem]

10 minutes ago, Sim said:

So how about frequent attendees who are not Friends?   Maybe we are the targets!!

 

Yes, very good point! I've sent a further email in respect of regular attenders who are NOT Friends.

Edited October 13, 2018 by bridiem

[Sim]

7 minutes ago, bridiem said:

 

Yes, very good point! I've sent a further email in respect of regular attenders who are NOT Friends.

Thanks Bridie.....I look forward to the reply!   

[alison]

2 hours ago, Sim said:

So how about frequent attendees who are not Friends?   Maybe we are the targets!!

 

Except that, as I said upthread, we at least are on a level playing field with the newbies they want to encourage - they have the same option at 9 am on public booking day that we do.

[Lizbie1]

44 minutes ago, alison said:

 

Except that, as I said upthread, we at least are on a level playing field with the newbies they want to encourage - they have the same option at 9 am on public booking day that we do.

 

You're right, but... for a lot of the people I imagine they're trying to attract, having to plan three months ahead for something they might give a 50:50 chance of enjoying could be what sees them not bothering at all.

 

I'm lucky that I'm in a position to be able to plan my attendance far ahead - indeed I have to if I'm to fit everything in - but this hasn't always been the case, and I'm someone who prioritises ballet and opera.

 

[Sim]

59 minutes ago, alison said:

 

Except that, as I said upthread, we at least are on a level playing field with the newbies they want to encourage - they have the same option at 9 am on public booking day that we do.

Yes, but that doesn’t alter the fact that they are trying to price us out!

[penelopesimpson]

1 hour ago, Lizbie1 said:

 

You're right, but... for a lot of the people I imagine they're trying to attract, having to plan three months ahead for something they might give a 50:50 chance of enjoying could be what sees them not bothering at all.

 

I'm lucky that I'm in a position to be able to plan my attendance far ahead - indeed I have to if I'm to fit everything in - but this hasn't always been the case, and I'm someone who prioritises ballet and opera.

 

Of for goodness sake!  (not directed at you...).  So, not only are these people who may or may not want to attend the ballet to be the target audience, we are now having to consider the fact that they may not want to plan ahead.  Who are these precious group?  If they are youngsters, they will probably pay extortionate amounts of money to see their favourite band.  U2 is booking now for autumn 2019.

 

Please ROH marketing explain to puzzled of Torquay why you want to spend so much time and effort on attracting an audience who may/may not want to go to a ballet, who can't be arsed to book ahead for the privilege of so doing, may bring their own refreshments and who may or may not return!  

Meanwhile, real ballet fans who make financial sacrifices, often travel insane distances and generally treat ROH with respect, are to be priced out of the market?

Has somebody gone bonkers?

[Geoff]

Bonkers? I have previously told the story of an exhausted senior arts venue manager trying to game the Arts Council system by seating certain kinds of people in certain seats on certain dates. Here is another example of how the system produces stupid results, when a now defunct Arts Council-like organisation (the UKFC) let an entrepreneurial film producer create a film he knows is bad but which nonetheless got its funding for political reasons:

 

>>They cared more about promoting diversity and fulfilling social quotas than about strong scripts. For that reason Nina’s Heavenly Delights (the worst film that I or anyone else has produced) was given £250,000 by the Film Council via Scottish Screen, not because it was a good story — far from — but because it was about Asian lesbians making curry in Glasgow, and so the perfect PC trivector. It was a critical and commercial flop, but no matter; we ticked the boxes.

 

(The full article is here:- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/good-riddance-to-the-uk-film-council-z7v8nf9q6g2 )

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Geoff